Why eating farmed fish may be safer than eating fish caught in the wild

Farmed fish are often viewed with suspicion, while wild-caught varieties are more likely to be perceived as healthy and pure. Seafood shoppers everywhere debate the differences and weigh their options carefully.

A fresh scientific review points to an unexpected conclusion. Various pollutants can accumulate in fish, and wild-caught individuals appear to experience greater exposure to these.

This perspective is shared by Dr. Isabel  Casanova-Martínez, a scientist who works under the auspices of several Spanish research institutions.

Understanding heavy metals

Many people recognize that heavy metals pose a threat for food safety.

These substances include elements like mercury, arsenic, lead and others that can build up in tissue (bioaccumulate) over time. Certain types can be risky to humans if present in large amounts.

Researchers found that wild-caught fish carried an average mercury concentration of 0.06 micrograms per gram, while farmed fish had about half that, at 0.038 micrograms per gram.

They also found arsenic levels of 3.26 micrograms per gram in wild fish, compared with 1.23 micrograms per gram in farmed varieties.

DDT and other pollutants

A lesser-known concern is DDT, which was once a widely used pesticide. Even though it was banned in many places years ago, traces can still linger. These residues can find their way into aquatic environments and accumulate in fish.

The review indicates around 196.48 nanograms per gram of DDT in wild-caught samples, whereas farmed fish had about 44.64 nanograms per gram.

The findings suggest differences in how fish come into contact with old pesticide deposits, possibly due to habitat or feeding patterns.

Why some fish fare better

Fish produced through aquaculture may face stricter oversight in terms of feed and water conditions.

Organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization note that this method continues to expand faster than other food sectors. Many producers track feeds and test water more regularly than ever.

Heavy metals can be introduced through industrial pollution, runoff, or other sources in natural waters.

Filtered tanks or closely monitored pens could mean fewer contaminants find their way into farmed species, although no method removes the risks entirely.

Real-world risks and caution

The World Health Organization has identified mercury as being among the top chemicals of concern for public health, especially for expectant mothers and small children.

High concentrations have been tied to neurological issues and developmental problems in infants.

Safe daily or weekly seafood intake is still possible, but guidelines vary depending on a person’s overall health.

Experts often urge pregnant women to be particularly careful about the consumption of large, predatory fish as they are known to harbor elevated mercury levels.

Balancing nutrition and contaminants

Eating fish brings many benefits. It offers protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and important minerals.

NOAA Fisheries underscores that fish are a valuable food, but also acknowledges that consumers should stay informed about possible contaminants.

Some nutrients, like selenium and zinc, vary based on the fish’s environment and diet.

Farmed diets often include formulated feeds that are designed to control final nutrient profiles. Wild species gain nutrients from ecosystems that are less predictable.

Leading author’s viewpoint

“Rather than pitting wild fishing against aquaculture, our review demonstrates that both sectors can coexist and help meet the world’s seafood needs safely,” concluded Dr. Casanova-Martínez, lead author of the study.

“Still, ongoing research and improvements in feed and environmental monitoring are essential for safeguarding public health.”

These observations reflect the broader consensus that both systems are vital for feeding populations. Each approach has benefits and drawbacks that require further attention.

Why regulation matters

Regulatory bodies set maximum allowed contaminant levels to keep consumers safe. Many fish samples in both categories fall within established safety margins.

Continuous oversight helps the public gain confidence in what ends up on their plates.

Authorities also caution special populations. Small children and pregnant individuals may need more careful advice about portion sizes, fish types, and heavy meal frequency.

Public health agencies need to adjust recommendations when new evidence emerges.

What’s next for consumers

Aquaculture often employs best practices to reduce pollutants, yet wild-caught products remain popular for taste and tradition.

People can choose a balanced approach, selecting a mix of fish sources and staying updated on guidelines for safer consumption.

Additional studies on feed technology and water filtration are ongoing. Research may reveal improved methods to cut contaminants and maintain fish quality in coming years.

Concerns about heavy metals and legacy pesticides should not overshadow the nutritional value of fish.

Instead, consumers should be making informed choices by identifying reputable suppliers and following health advisories to ensure they reduce the intake of unwanted substances.

Individuals looking for more detail can consult government websites or speak with healthcare providers for tailored advice. Monitoring official recommendations about fish intake can also safer meal planning.

The study is published in Food Control.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–